Effect of scan substrates on accuracy of 7 intraoral digital impression systems using human maxilla model.

OBJECTIVE This study aimed to determine how the accuracy of digital impressions was affected by four common dental substrates using seven prevalent IOS systems to scan the complete arch of a human maxilla. SETTING AND SAMPLE POPULATION The Department of Oral Rehabilitation at the Medical University of South Carolina. A single cadaver maxilla. MATERIALS AND METHODS Seven digital intraoral impression systems were used to scan a freshly harvested human maxilla. The maxilla contained several teeth restored with amalgam and composite, as well as unrestored teeth characterized by enamel. Also, three teeth were prepared for full coverage restorations to expose natural dentin. An industrial grade metrology software program that allowed 3D overlay and dimensional computation compared deviations of the complete arch and its substrates on the test model from the reference model. RESULTS Substrates were significantly different from each other when considering scan data as a whole, as well as when comparing IOS devices individually. Only PlanScan failed to reveal trueness differences between the different substrates, while only Emerald revealed precision differences between the substrates. CONCLUSIONS Substrate type does impact the overall accuracy of intraoral scans with dentin being the most accurate and enamel being the least accurate. The four substrates scanned impacted the trueness of all IOS devices.

[1]  Park Hong-Seok,et al.  Development of High Speed and High Accuracy 3D Dental Intra Oral Scanner , 2015 .

[2]  R. Nedelcu,et al.  Scanning accuracy and precision in 4 intraoral scanners: an in vitro comparison based on 3-dimensional analysis. , 2014, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[3]  C. Flores‐Mir,et al.  Validity and reliability of intraoral scanners compared to conventional gypsum models measurements: a systematic review. , 2016, European journal of orthodontics.

[4]  Tiegen Liu,et al.  Measurement of the refractive index of human teeth by optical coherence tomography. , 2009, Journal of biomedical optics.

[5]  A A Caputo,et al.  Effects of disinfectants on dimensional accuracy of impression materials. , 1990, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[6]  O. Schaefer,et al.  Qualitative and quantitative three-dimensional accuracy of a single tooth captured by elastomeric impression materials: an in vitro study. , 2012, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[7]  Jian Sun,et al.  Comparison of repeatability between intraoral digital scanner and extraoral digital scanner: An in-vitro study. , 2015, Journal of prosthodontic research.

[8]  L. Franchi,et al.  Accuracy, reliability, and efficiency of intraoral scanners for full-arch impressions: a systematic review of the clinical evidence. , 2016, European journal of orthodontics.

[9]  P. Vallittu,et al.  Digital Versus Conventional Impressions in Fixed Prosthodontics: A Review , 2018, Journal of prosthodontics : official journal of the American College of Prosthodontists.

[10]  Y. Sumi,et al.  Effects of structural orientation of enamel and dentine on light attenuation and local refractive index: an optical coherence tomography study. , 2012, Journal of dentistry.

[11]  K. Tandecka,et al.  Three-dimensional quantitative analysis of adhesive remnants and enamel loss resulting from debonding orthodontic molar tubes , 2014, Head & Face Medicine.

[12]  Ji-Man Park,et al.  Impact of Orthodontic Brackets on the Intraoral Scan Data Accuracy , 2016, BioMed research international.

[13]  Anthony S Mennito,et al.  Evaluation of the effect scan pattern has on the trueness and precision of six intraoral digital impression systems , 2018, Journal of esthetic and restorative dentistry : official publication of the American Academy of Esthetic Dentistry ... [et al.].

[14]  Vito Renó,et al.  A Modified Iterative Closest Point Algorithm for 3D Point Cloud Registration , 2016, Comput. Aided Civ. Infrastructure Eng..

[15]  Peter A. Mossey,et al.  Orthodontic Scanners: What's Available? , 2015, Journal of orthodontics.

[16]  Mark Ludlow,et al.  Evaluation of the accuracy of 7 digital scanners: An in vitro analysis based on 3‐dimensional comparisons , 2017, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[17]  Albert Mehl,et al.  Accuracy of complete-arch dental impressions: a new method of measuring trueness and precision. , 2013, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[18]  S. Heo,et al.  Comparison of digital intraoral scanner reproducibility and image trueness considering repetitive experience , 2017, The Journal of prosthetic dentistry.

[19]  E. D. Rekow,et al.  Computer-aided design and fabrication of dental restorations: current systems and future possibilities. , 2006, Journal of the American Dental Association.

[20]  Tilo Pfeifer,et al.  Optical Methods for Dimensional Metrology in Production Engineering , 2002 .

[21]  P. Buschang,et al.  Reliability and validity of intraoral and extraoral scanners , 2015, Progress in orthodontics.

[22]  Philip Robinson,et al.  Intraoral Scanner Technologies: A Review to Make a Successful Impression , 2017, Journal of healthcare engineering.

[23]  Steven D. Phillips,et al.  Laser trackers for large-scale dimensional metrology: A review , 2016 .

[24]  T. Joyce,et al.  Validation of an optical system to measure acetabular shell deformation in cadavers , 2014, Proceedings of the Institution of Mechanical Engineers. Part H, Journal of engineering in medicine.

[25]  Josef Schweiger,et al.  A new method for the evaluation of the accuracy of full-arch digital impressions in vitro , 2015, Clinical Oral Investigations.